3 Equal candidates?

[MindMatter]

This all seems to have boiled down to Clinton, Obama, and McCain. I am having a lot of trouble seeing much difference among them. They will all cater to the center. McCain has taken some positions I strongly disagree with, but I admire him for taking a stand, and also for being man enough to change from time to time. I'm trying to see how the DLC candidate, Clinton, would be an improvement over him. I'll keep an open mind, but given the choice between another Clinton and McCain, only party loyalty would make me vote for Clinton.

Obama has yet to say much of anything. He is maddeningly vague about everything. Does anybody know what he believes in, other than the vague concept of "change"?

It is a long time to November, but the Democrats have come out of this again with the least compelling of candidates. Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?

[gateley]

1. I see a BIG difference between McCain and Obama and Hillary -- Iraq. nt

[readmoreoften]

2. Really? A "big" difference?

I think all three candidates would happily take us to Iran if necessary.

[New Dawn]

5. I agree

I really do not see much of a difference between them on any significant issue: Iraq, Iran, health care, trade, etc.

[gateley]

6. I disagree about Iraq and Iran...

I think both Dems would be reticent getting involved in Iran and trying to extend our stay in Iraq, They KNOW their base. I view HRC's Kyl/Lieberman vote as a strategic move with an eye toward the GE.

Health care, trade -- not so much of a difference, I agree. Unfortunately.

[MindMatter]

4. Thank you for making my point

The rhetoric may be slightly different, but the practical effect is no different at all. McCain was an advocate of "the surge". I can live with that. It was a hell of a lot better than just leaving our troops in a shooting gallery, which is essentially the position you have with Clinton or Obama.

It was Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich who took the position theat we should get out now. Clinton and Obama equivocated on this and every other issue.

It worked for them.

[Andy823]

3. You ask why

Do we keep doing this, well that's good question, all I can say is "stupidity" on the part of the leadership of the party. They want a candidate they can "control" and that's what we have to settle for. Same goes for the repubicans, they want one they can control. And the really sick thing is that the leadership of both sides want one thing, to be able to get the "MONEY" from the huge corporations that are destroying our way of life, and that makes me mad as hell! We can never get any real "change" as long as we have the corporations running things. Will Clinton or Obama take them on? I really doubt it! :mad:

I have wondered over the last week or so, if the dems "want" to lose in order to let the republicans take the rap for Iraq. If the dems win the whitehouse, and don't get the troops out, what do you think the country will be like in 4 years? The republicans would be rip for another "take over"!

The whole thing is about politics, money, and power, and the HELL with the people of this country.

[cd3dem]

7. you must be a man and not worried your reproductive rights are at stake